MARGINALIZATION OF THE SOUTH—SOUTH: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The entity Nigeria is often construed to be an error of judgment or at best a conception of the colonial master to promote their pecuniary interest. To look to the brighter side, opportunity made the best of a bad situation. Common experience has bestowed shared destiny to its odd peoples. To seek separate ways after a journey this far together would seem as though to desire to be born afresh into a new beginning with old obstacles.

Resource control, power sharing, marginal representation at all levels of participation as well as equitable distribution of wealth between the states of the country in North/South dichotomy, are the pivotal issues that press for recognition and forum within the polity.

Unfortunate as it may seem, it is noteworthy to mention that the proper forum has been afforded Nigerians by an apparent unintentional means, while the timing of the event may well be said to be both haphazard and typical of the ‘fire-brigade approach’ the Nigeria Government is wont to bulldoze its way through obstacles.

Enter 1999, talks were rife about the necessity of the imminence of a ‘Sovereign National Conference’. Debate stuck on the nominal character of the event: the decision of the Presidency prevailed over all exigencies: it was intolerable to conceive of shared dual sovereignty by two separate entities, with the first which is the State Government being legal and the other the demanded National Conference extra-legal. The source of sovereignty of the former was of the Constitution, while that of the latter was of popular sovereignty of the people, or at least so His Excellency thought.

The sovereignty of the state, which derives from the people abides with the state, from which the Constitution derives its supremacy. Persons in Government under a democracy merely exercise state powers on behalf of the state, but do not to wear its sovereign character. The Constitution itself which vests state powers on office-holders is not itself sovereign in character, thus cannot bestow the quality it lacks.

In a hierarchy of power, the character of each legal entity is thus:
State ---------------------- Sovereign
Constitution-------------- Supreme
Executive----------------- Limited Agency(by checks)

The provisions which vest power to office-holders also restrain the exercise within discretionary and mandatory limits.

Sovereignty of the State is only usurped by dictators who ascend into power by totalitarian means.

At any rate, it was sad that history failed to record an address of fundamental issues of the Nigerian character which would have given precise definition to opportunistic phenomena such as the practice of the Sharia in many states of Northern Nigeria.

Such a practice, irrespective of its benefits, exists in express inconsistency with the supreme law of the land. This embarrassing situation dents the legal efficacy of constitutionalism and the rule of law in Nigeria: say nothing of the many acts of Government that emphasize the notion.

It is unheard of that a country’s constitution runs inconsistent to its Grundnorm.

In the light of such inconsistency, the constitution falls short of its efficacy for failure to represent properly the will of the entire people. The psyche it proffers is bound to be warped.

This unfortunate situation still does not justify the more unseemly prospect of a hastily adopted constitution. That would be jumping out into another hole.

Fundamental first steps demand the setting up props for new foundations. Popular forum must be provided to give voice to the aspirations of the people. Next in issue comes the appropriateness of the time of National Conference.

Regrettably, the eight-year span of the incumbent civilian regime would have given ample opportunity for trials and errors to experiment on the art of forging a Nigerian psyche which would be acceptable to all. The present stability was, however, not predictable at the beginning of the first tenure.

As to the means of deliberation, it was probably wisdom in then eyes of the Executive which saw the consequence of one more straw to a heated polity, and opted for an open approach to a peoples’ parliament at the appointed time. The conscience of the people, moved by popular facts commonly shared with respect to the need to rectify power imbalances in access to wealth, power and representation is now the efficacious means by which common notions that lack forum in the polity find vent to evolve speedy changes that would implement social justice.

It will be gainsaying though to presume this will all come to pass on a smooth bed of Roses. The political terrain is not as level as it was seven years ago: societal inequalities are accentuated by more rigid class separation and aggravated poverty.

The rich talk tough so more force will be required to give the poor a voice.

Contemporary Nigerian polity is riddled with anomalies and misnomers of such questionable origin the hearer is left with an airy feeling. What makes it more bewildering is the fact that these misconceptions emanate from supposedly right-thinking minds. The repercussion on lesser minds is better imagined.

Where persons from a certain sector of the country feel that power is a natural vesture to be worn by them with their innate claim being the region of the state they hail from.

Where other persons speak of rotational presidency, an apparently equitable concept, which upon closer scrutiny raises questions of efficacy and practicability; given that Nigerians were never given the forum to deliberate on such issues, what structures are on ground to implement this system? Who are the persons to represent the sovereign will of the people and what authenticates their appointment?

No matter how lofty the notion any act extralegal can only further anarchical practices.

The people of the South-South, disenfranchised as they may be are at best left at the mercy of the state to exercise their prerogative of pardon and sympathize with their cause. The deepest sympathies they should seek by humble non-violent means rather than strive as of right to righten wrongs of half a century. Past silence for so long suffices for acquiescence on their part, a sudden violent outburst in quest of a stale claim will seem a drunken pursuit of a strongman awakened from sleep.

Justification of rational thought and action is absent in this awakened state of derelict!

The fate of the people of the South-South was neither circumstantial or borne of ill-fortune. Short memory seems to fail many militants who forget the ancient landmarks of the colonial masters remain an engrained legacy. As a parting gift, they bestowed power to the nations with more compatible customs to the practice of indirect rule. From this knowledge the braggards speak of claim to power as a birth rite.

The South-South was not in the good books of the colonial masters: yet, I wonder why this should matter half a decade into so-called sovereign rule. The real issue to be decided now is:are we truly independent and self-sufficient to rule over our affairs?

To be or not to be, that is the question. Neo-colonialism or self-subservience is no option whatsoever for the new day.